Do you believe in the SB hangover?

[Brady_to_Moss]

I keep hear people mention it...the SB hangover after losing..doesn't it really effect the players? Becasue i don't think it does

 

[jah]

Sure seems real this year...

 

[Tunescribe]

Sure seems real this year...

I don't think the replacement refs who cost us two games (Arizona, Baltimore) were at the last Super Bowl. If not for them we'd be 6-1 and nobody would be talking "hangover."

 

[Jackson 2]

I keep hear people mention it...the SB hangover after losing..doesn't it really effect the players? Becasue i don't think it does

No, I don't.

 

[jah]

I don't think the replacement refs who cost us two games (Arizona, Baltimore) were at the last Super Bowl. If not for them we'd be 6-1 and nobody would be talking "hangover."

The refs did nothing to cost us the Arizona game; you can blame the offense and Gostkowski for that one. They hosed us pretty badly in Baltimore but it shouldn't have been that close in the first place. 5-2 and I'm still talking hangover because of how badly they've played in 3 of the games (Arizona, Seattle, Jest).

 

[brdmaverick]

Also, let's be realistic. There are only two teams that go to the Super Bowl. Therefore, you have to be a really good team to make it to the Super Bowl.

Therefore, chances are actually high that you would not make it back to the Super Bowl (and thus not fair as well). You may still be a REALLY good team, but you're not quite as good as the year before so people want to classify it as a hangover.

It's the same thing as the Madden curse. Usually a guy gets on the Madden cover by having an insane stat crazy year during the prior season. Chances of repeating such success are not very high, and people want to classify it as a curse just because a player doesn't repeat his video game stats from the year before.

 

[Efstratios]

I did at a time. But not really now. I really think that teams have "SB hangovers" because of things like injuries or not adapting well to the season (not doing a good job replacing players lost during the off season). There's also the fact that making it to the SB in the first place is no easy task.

Honestly, what qualifies as a "hangover"? Is it related to how high the standards for the team are, or is it about the dropoff in the W column? I could understand how missing the playoffs or losing in the 1st round could be considered hangovers, but what if this team went as far as the AFC championship before getting knocked out? Would that qualify as a hangover?

I'm not really in remembering things, so I ask the posters on this board this: What was the last SB losing team that wasn't decimated by injuries throughout the season or key departures?

 

[YearbookCurfew]

I think yes and no. The Steelers a few years ago sure had quite the hangover after winning the Super Bowl. Packers and Giants don't seem to be affected.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

2 Advil, Vitamin B complex and Vitamin C should get rid of any hangover (though you may have cobwebs) overnight. Trick is, to remember taking it before you go to bed.

 

[DaBronxPats14]

No but a Secondary Hangover is more like it. Same ole secondary issues hung over from last year to this year. No significant improvement.

 

[jah]

2011: Steelers had a pretty good season and blew it in the WC round to Tebow.
2010: Colts had a good but not great season and lost at home to the Jest in the WC round.
2009: Cardinals had a good regular season and made a fairly respectable playoff run.
2008: **** Bernard Pollard
2007: Bears went 7-9.

So in the last 5 years, the Super Bowl loser is 1-3 in playoff games and 50-30 in the regular season (that's 10-6 on average). Seems like we're on pace for a similar year, with 9 to 11 regular season wins and a quick playoff exit. I wouldn't call it a hangover, but it does seem like slight regression happens to the team that lost the previous Super Bowl.

 

[jmt57]

The biggest negative effects (i.e., "hangover") are:

• Team played up to four more games than other teams did the previous year (more wear and tear, more injuries)
  
  
• Team had up to six weeks less time off to heal and rehab from injuries, and to mentally recharge from a draining season
  
  
• Team drafts 31st, meaning all but one other team gets a better chance to improve the talent on the roster through the draft.
  

The other thing to keep in mind is that the talent level among NFL teams is very close. Typically half the teams that make the playoffs one year don't make the playoffs the next year. Things that went your way one year that helped you get to the Super Bowl are bound to not happen twice in a row.

It is really hard to win in the NFL.

It is really, really hard to get to the Super Bowl.

It is really, really, really hard to get there twice in a row.



I would characterize it more as infinitesimally small odds rather than a 'hangover'.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

If the Patriots make the playoffs this year (very likely barring a Brady injury), we'll be the 4th straight SB loser to make the playoffs the following year, and would have been the 5th straight if not for Brady tearing his ACL. So I think this hangover thing is pretty overrated and probably just more coincidence than anything. Some of the teams (Chicago '06, Panthers '03) were just flash in the pan teams who mostly benefitted from playing in a weak NFC conference, they returned to their normal selves soon after.

 

[juny]

The refs did nothing to cost us the Arizona game; you can blame the offense and Gostkowski for that one. They hosed us pretty badly in Baltimore but it shouldn't have been that close in the first place. 5-2 and I'm still talking hangover because of how badly they've played in 3 of the games (Arizona, Seattle, Jest).

there was a hold called on gronk that was a terrible call, which took back woodhead's TD in the arizona game.